Articles today in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp) and the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121.html) are confirming a policy from President Obama that authorizes the assassination of a US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki no matter where he be found.
As bad as President Bush was denounced and criticized for his all encompassing Executive powers stance, even he did not go this far.

Hew

04-08-2010, 07:13 AM

LOL. I read that article about 5 mins. ago and though of you.

I like it. Kudos to Obama. Engaging terrorists as if they're shoplifters is what brought us to 9/11. If you actively engage in warfare abroad against the United States then you're subject to a lead overdose.

subroc

04-08-2010, 07:16 AM

I have no problem with this. For all you lefties, I hope they try to capture him first, but barring the ability to do that, killing will be a prudent action. (did I just write killing and prudent in the same sentence?)

ducknwork

04-08-2010, 07:17 AM

Why is this in the news?:confused: Something like this should be kept verrrry quiet.

ducknwork

04-08-2010, 07:21 AM

I have no problem with this. For all you lefties, I hope they try to capture him first, but barring the ability to do that, killing will be a prudent action. (did I just write killing and prudent in the same sentence?)

Yeah! We should capture him and then waterboard him, umm can't do that... show him naked women, ummm no...I've got it! play really loud rock music...sh1t! Can't do that either. I guess we'll just have to ask him nicely for any imformation he might be willing to share with us. That ought to work.

cotts135

04-08-2010, 07:33 AM

I find it funny if not a little distressing how some of you on one hand will adamantly and vehemently defend one Constitutional right and just kind of throw away and forget about another. Like it or not this guy no matter how big of a dirt bag he is has the right as an American citizen to a trial. What I would ask all of you who are quick to condemn and convict this guy is how do you know he is guilty? I thought trials were for that.

subroc

04-08-2010, 07:39 AM

I don't need to "know" every piece of informationn that is available.

As far as his rights to a trial, we have a right to not be targeted by our fellow citizens.

How about armed and dangerous? Can you kill someone like that?

dnf777

04-08-2010, 08:46 AM

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has absolutely no grasp of American history or respect for justice. Does he deserve to die? YES! After we're sure he's guilty. And how do we do that? By one man's opinion who is trying to hold on to office? Don't think so. I don't care if its Bush, Obama, Carter, or Mother Theresa....no one person should be above the law. If someone is pointing a gun or posing immediate threat, cops are allowed to use deadly force. Otherwise, they arrest, charge, and convict before executing punishment. Its worked pretty well for over 200 years.

I don't think those that support this measure have really considered the ramifications and potentials for abuse this allows. And the stakes are high.

Having said all that, let me also add, that if there is credible intel that this man poses an immediate threat, then just like the cop with a gun pointed at him, we should take him out. But not on CNN and Fox. If that man just showed up at the bottom of a well, we would never know about it, would we?

road kill

04-08-2010, 08:50 AM

All this indignation should be directed toward the guy who issued the policy, not we the dirty unwashed on the RTF board.

He is YOUR guy, YOU elected him, here is YOUR change!!

Enjoy!!:D

rk

cotts135

04-08-2010, 09:03 AM

I don't need to "know" every piece of informationn that is available.

As far as his rights to a trial, we have a right to not be targeted by our fellow citizens.

How about armed and dangerous? Can you kill someone like that?

This illustrates my point. Who is to say that at one of the recent protests where indivduals were openly carrying weapons, some government official whether it be a Secret service guy or a local cop comes to the conclusion you have. My point is that because if the government says it is so doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

david gibson

04-08-2010, 09:28 AM

I find it funny if not a little distressing how some of you on one hand will adamantly and vehemently defend one Constitutional right and just kind of throw away and forget about another. Like it or not this guy no matter how big of a dirt bag he is has the right as an American citizen to a trial. What I would ask all of you who are quick to condemn and convict this guy is how do you know he is guilty? I thought trials were for that.

just look at him! he is wearing muslim clothes, has a beard, wearing a towel on his head, and he looks like cat stevens.

I have to fall on the side of the lefties this time. He is an American citizen who is suspected of a crime. A reasonable effort should be made to capture him alive and bring him to trial. He should be dealt with just as any other violent and dangerous criminal who is a U.S. citizen. I don't, however, believe that the same rules apply to those who are foreign nationals.

ducknwork

04-08-2010, 12:17 PM

Having said all that, let me also add, that if there is credible intel that this man poses an immediate threat, then just like the cop with a gun pointed at him, we should take him out. But not on CNN and Fox. If that man just showed up at the bottom of a well, we would never know about it, would we?

I agree 1 million%.

dnf777

04-08-2010, 03:26 PM

All this indignation should be directed toward the guy who issued the policy, not we the dirty unwashed on the RTF board.

He is YOUR guy, YOU elected him, here is YOUR change!!

Enjoy!!:Drk

The posse comitatus act prohibited the president from such actions. It was a John Warner sponsored bill, signed by GWB in 2006 than enable such presidential behavior:

The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[

Pretty much makes the president a King, when it comes to unruly subjects. I don't want Bush, Obama, or the Dali Lama wielding that type of power over the lives of citizens.

but to set the record strait, it was YOUR guy who enabled this, not mine. Obama's not mine anyway. :confused:

road kill

04-08-2010, 03:58 PM

The posse comitatus act prohibited the president from such actions. It was a John Warner sponsored bill, signed by GWB in 2006 than enable such presidential behavior:

The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[

Pretty much makes the president a King, when it comes to unruly subjects. I don't want Bush, Obama, or the Dali Lama wielding that type of power over the lives of citizens.

but to set the record strait, it was YOUR guy who enabled this, not mine. Obama's not mine anyway. :confused:

No, Dave, it was not, read this and tell me how you blame this on Bush??

"U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: April 6, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday."

Please explain to me how this is Bush's fault???

You guys are starting to embarrass yourselves with your blind hatred.:(

rk

dnf777

04-08-2010, 05:14 PM

No, Dave, it was not, read this and tell me how you blame this on Bush??

"U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: April 6, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday."

Please explain to me how this is Bush's fault???

You guys are starting to embarrass yourselves with your blind hatred.:(
rk

The posse comitatus act prohibited the president from ordering troops to act against US citizens. Bush repealed this in 2006, enabling the president to use the US military against US citizens....an act which has been forbidden since reconstruction. I would like to see this act reinstated so NO president may abuse this power. Ordering the military to dispose of citizens is what Vlad Dracula the Impaler did. We don't want to be that way. I'm not pitting W against O here....NEITHER man should be trusted with such power. What do you think the founding fathers, who feared monarchy and tyrrany would think of one man, with no judicial restraint, being able to order the death of a US citizen?? There's no blind hatred here. Bush gave the power to himself, and NO president willingly gives it back! Now Obama has acted upon it. I didn't think you righties would approve of that. I know I don't. Catch the guy, convict him by a jury of his peers and due process, then string him up!

This dog don't hunt!

YardleyLabs

04-08-2010, 06:38 PM

Ordering/authorizing assassinations in other countries is nothing new. It used to be done on a regular basis with targets including the South Vietnamese President and Castro under JFK. When evidence of repeated assassination attempts surfaced under Nixon, President Ford issued an Executive Order outlawing political assassinations by Federal government employees. Bush interpreted the restriction as not preventing any act deemed necessary for defense of the country. As I understand it, the Posse Comitatus law would be irrelevant here with or without the 2006 amendment. The act was adopted to prevent the military being used to impose public order within the United States. It does not restrict actions be the military outside the United Sates and does not apply to Federal employees outside the military (e.g., the FBI may be used as a domestic police force). With respect to the substance of the question, I tend to believe that US forces (military or civilian) operating overseas against enemy forces should take such actions as are needed to fulfill their mission. If those actions constitute crime in the country in which they are engaged or crimes under international law, the existence of a presidential authorization means nothing. Thus, CIA agents that conducted a "rendition" in Italy have been convicted in absentia of kidnapping and are subject to imprisonment if they are ever captured in Italy. Italy has not sought their extradition and the US has not offered it, but the convictions stand.

However, if a target is considered to be a direct threat to the US and cannot be captured for return to a judicial system that we trust, I see no reason why we would discipline or prosecute an employee who killed that person while attempting to bring them to justice. I would make no particular effort to ensure that Osama bin Laden survived an effort to capture him, any more than I would have had a problem if a grenade had been dropped into Sadam Hussein's hidey hole. I would have a problem if the target was captured, questioned, and then executed while under our control. I believe that would qualify as a war crime under any fair interpretation of our treaty obligations.

dnf777

04-08-2010, 06:48 PM

Good points Jeff. I wonder what a friendly nation with extradition agreements with the US would think of us "rubbing someone out" in their country though? I doubt it would go over well, just as if the Mexican police plugged Julio on a street in Houston, or Bosnian troops were shooting at their most wanted in DC.

I would think the SOFA laws would apply, as we're talking military action in a foreign nation. (status of forces agreement) and they're generally not favorable of killing civilians, even if they're deserving.

But I'll say again, a good covert ops group can render this conversation moot!
(come on Hew, RK, you gotta agree with that! These opportunities don't come along often!)

road kill

04-08-2010, 06:54 PM

Good points Jeff. I wonder what a friendly nation with extradition agreements with the US would think of us "rubbing someone out" in their country though? I doubt it would go over well, just as if the Mexican police plugged Julio on a street in Houston, or Bosnian troops were shooting at their most wanted in DC.

I would think the SOFA laws would apply, as we're talking military action in a foreign nation. (status of forces agreement) and they're generally not favorable of killing civilians, even if they're deserving.

But I'll say again, a good covert ops group can render this conversation moot!
(come on Hew, RK, you gotta agree with that! These opportunities don't come along often!)
You mean like Mossad??

They do it right.

rk

Uncle Bill

04-08-2010, 07:45 PM

My point is that because if the government says it is so doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

WHAAAAAATTT???? Did you run that past RAHM??? Have you been struck by lightning?:rolleyes:

I can only hope Jihad Jane doesn't read RTF, or you'd better find some bomb proof digs. Statements like that are just not allowed in this PC Obama world...certainly NOT when the messiah is in charge.

Your only way to redeem yourself is to sell ALL your sizeable stash of carbon credits to Algore, at half the going rate, so he has enough profit to spread the wealth among Obama's poor brethren.

UB

pat addis

04-09-2010, 09:21 AM

just look at him! he is wearing muslim clothes, has a beard, wearing a towel on his head, and he looks like cat stevens.

To me, this is another very dangerous indicator of the disregard that PBO/ the Administration has for the whole due process of law.
First that signed, legally binding contracts are of no matter, they can be disregarded whenever it's suits your political purpose.
Then it's just decided by the Admin that foreign nationals are entitled to legal right/protections of citizens.
Consequently, it's announced that if they don't get the death verdict they want, as in Holder's statements about KSM, they'd just ignore it and keep him incarcerated, "We're not going to let him go anyway".
Now they decide that we don't even need a trial//judge/jury/verdict for American citizens anymore, just go ahead and execute. All that is needed now is to label someone as a "terrorist" and you can get Presidential/NSC permission to take them out.

What about Colleen LaRose, accused of conspiring with fighters overseas and pledging to commit murder in the name of a Muslim holy war & of alleged colleague Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, accused of plotting online to attend a terror training camp, arrested by agents with the joint terrorism task force. Should they have just assassinated them there in Ireland? After all, they haven't even arrested Al-Alwaki yet and they can kill him.

The arrested "mailbox bomber" suspect, Larry North, has had his actions labeled as "nothing short of domestic terrorism"by the US Atty's office in TX. Should he just be executed right now, skip the whole trial/verdict crap? It's just a "formality" right? And even if he's found "not guilty" somehow, the verdict can just be ignored according to AG Holder.

It doesn't matter who set the precedent with terrorism and suspension of rights, this Administration is out of control and expanding upon it. We are all at risk under them.

freefall319

04-09-2010, 02:42 PM

Yeah! We should capture him and then waterboard him, umm can't do that... show him naked women, ummm no...I've got it! play really loud rock music...sh1t! Can't do that either. I guess we'll just have to ask him nicely for any imformation he might be willing to share with us. That ought to work.

Took the word's right out of my mouth.

Hew

04-09-2010, 03:25 PM

Let's pretend that instead of working to bring a terror strike to America, generically, Anwar al-Awlaki has pledged to bring death and destruction specifically to Yardley, PA, Watertown, NY or Oz, Western PA or specifically your children by name. Would you rather your government take the low-probablity-of-success tactic of trying to arrest him in some third world crap hole or just simply send a Hellfire missle into the sonuvabiatch's tent in the middle of night? If you say, "oh, I'd much rather put my children at greater risk and try to arrest him in a hostile nation than violating his rights by killing him" then you're either lying to us or lying to yourself. While al-Awlaki might not be trying to kill your kids in Yardley, Watertown or Oz, rest assured that's he's trying to kill somebodys' kids in some town in America. When al-Awlaki declared war on America he lost his Constitutional guarantees.

dnf777

04-09-2010, 05:02 PM

Let's pretend that instead of working to bring a terror strike to America, generically, Anwar al-Awlaki has pledged to bring death and destruction specifically to Yardley, PA, Watertown, NY or Oz, Western PA or specifically your children by name. Would you rather your government take the low-probablity-of-success tactic of trying to arrest him in some third world crap hole or just simply send a Hellfire missle into the sonuvabiatch's tent in the middle of night? If you say, "oh, I'd much rather put my children at greater risk and try to arrest him in a hostile nation than violating his rights by killing him" then you're either lying to us or lying to yourself. While al-Awlaki might not be trying to kill your kids in Yardley, Watertown or Oz, rest assured that's he's trying to kill somebodys' kids in some town in America. When al-Awlaki declared war on America he lost his Constitutional guarantees.

Go back and read my post *carefully* and slowly.....keep telling yourself, "I can comprehend better than a fifth grader", then come back.

dnf777

04-09-2010, 05:08 PM

Took the word's right out of my mouth.

Gee, what did we do with Rudolph, Linn, Bundy, McVeigh, Nichols, Harris and Kleibold?

Are you so anti-American that you have no faith in our Constitution and judicial system? Or should we just chunk it in a heap and be like Venezuela, USSR, or Iran? Because THAT is exactly what you're supporting, if you support totalitarianism-like hits on citizens. I can't believe I'm hearing this from self-proclaimed Patriots!

Again, I firmly believe in a cop's right to use deadly force when imminent danger is present. But they're not told to go hunt and kill a suspect.

ducknwork

04-09-2010, 05:19 PM

I guess it would depend on the interpretation of the definition of 'imminent danger', wouldn't it Dave?

dnf777

04-09-2010, 05:21 PM

I guess it would depend on the interpretation of the definition of 'imminent danger', wouldn't it Dave?

It's like pornography, I know it when I see it!

Hew

04-09-2010, 05:24 PM

Go back and read my post *carefully* and slowly.....keep telling yourself, "I can comprehend better than a fifth grader", then come back.
I never read it the first time...why start now? Did you surprisingly not come down on the side of conferring Constitutional rights to terrorists activley engaged in trying to kill Americans? If so, let me know and I'll take the time to read it. If not,....<<yaaaaaaaawn>>

ducknwork

04-09-2010, 05:25 PM

It's like pornography, I know it when I see it!

So Obama made the call as he sees it, right? He apparently views his country to be in 'imminent danger'.

Hew

04-09-2010, 05:31 PM

Gee, what did we do with Rudolph, Linn, Bundy, McVeigh, Nichols, Harris and Kleibold?
Were those guys captured in Third World sh!tholes where we have few allies, no practical ability to operate or even put feet on the ground, no functioning govt. to coordinate with and no infrastructure to support our operations? Those are the conditions where terrorists habitate...mountains of Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, etc. A little bit different than FBI agents tracking down a bank robber don't ya think?

(see...some of your posts I do read afterall ;-))

YardleyLabs

04-09-2010, 06:16 PM

Let's pretend that instead of working to bring a terror strike to America, generically, Anwar al-Awlaki has pledged to bring death and destruction specifically to Yardley, PA, Watertown, NY or Oz, Western PA or specifically your children by name. Would you rather your government take the low-probablity-of-success tactic of trying to arrest him in some third world crap hole or just simply send a Hellfire missle into the sonuvabiatch's tent in the middle of night? If you say, "oh, I'd much rather put my children at greater risk and try to arrest him in a hostile nation than violating his rights by killing him" then you're either lying to us or lying to yourself. While al-Awlaki might not be trying to kill your kids in Yardley, Watertown or Oz, rest assured that's he's trying to kill somebodys' kids in some town in America. When al-Awlaki declared war on America he lost his Constitutional guarantees.
If you read my post you will find no suggestion that we go out of our way to bring him back alive.

Hew

04-09-2010, 06:24 PM

If you read my post you will find no suggestion that we go out of our way to bring him back alive.
So you're in favor of Obama authorizing the American citizen to be killed by US forces? A simple yes or no will suffice (in lieu of another 500 word legal lecture on Posse Comitatus). We all have our faults...Buzz likes his newz in a viewable comedy format and I have a short attention span. ;-)

YardleyLabs

04-09-2010, 06:38 PM

So you're in favor of Obama authorizing the American citizen to be killed by US forces? A simple yes or no will suffice (in lieu of another 500 word legal lecture on Posse Comitatus). We all have our faults...Buzz likes his newz in a viewable comedy format and I have a short attention span. ;-)
I have no problem with the President authorizing a covert mission to neutralize a US citizen, resident in another country, who is inciting and participating in attacks against the United States either by returning him to the US for trial or killing him in the event they are unable to do so. I also recognize, as should anyone participating, that those participating in the mission may be subject to prosecution in the country where the mission occurs and that we might or might not be able to help in those circumstances.

If you want to answer loaded questions with a simple yes or no, you might want to practice playing Russian roulette first.:rolleyes:

freefall319

04-09-2010, 07:12 PM

Gee, what did we do with Rudolph, Linn, Bundy, McVeigh, Nichols, Harris and Kleibold?

Are you so anti-American that you have no faith in our Constitution and judicial system? Or should we just chunk it in a heap and be like Venezuela, USSR, or Iran? Because THAT is exactly what you're supporting, if you support totalitarianism-like hits on citizens. I can't believe I'm hearing this from self-proclaimed Patriots!

Again, I firmly believe in a cop's right to use deadly force when imminent danger is present. But they're not told to go hunt and kill a suspect.

We do this every day overseas. There are ton's of people with SOS (shoot on sight) or Dead or Alive orders on thier heads. So why is it that once that policy happens here on our soil that all the sudden people have a problem with it?

This war is not just being fought in Iraq & Afghanistan. It is being fought all over the world including here in America. So why change the rules because it's here in the US? If we send the message that all you have to do is come to the US and we will arrest and try you through our judicial system then why not come here? I know i'd sure as hell rather be tried here than there.

Then, once that person is locked up how many Americans will die when his people try and help him escape? Or how many families of those who are tasked with trying him in court will end up dead?

Should send Osama to trial?

Would you blame the soildiers or civilians who find him if they bring him in dead?

YardleyLabs

04-09-2010, 08:14 PM

We do this every day overseas. There are ton's of people with SOS (shoot on sight) or Dead or Alive orders on thier heads. So why is it that once that policy happens here on our soil that all the sudden people have a problem with it?

This war is not just being fought in Iraq & Afghanistan. It is being fought all over the world including here in America. So why change the rules because it's here in the US? If we send the message that all you have to do is come to the US and we will arrest and try you through our judicial system then why not come here? I know i'd sure as hell rather be tried here than there.

Then, once that person is locked up how many Americans will die when his people try and help him escape? Or how many families of those who are tasked with trying him in court will end up dead?

Should send Osama to trial?

Would you blame the soildiers or civilians who find him if they bring him in dead?
Nobody has suggested assassinating someone on US soil and no President has the power to declare State laws against murder null and void. I would have a serious issue with that and consider it grounds for impeachment as well as criminal prosecution. I can't believe you would find it acceptable.

dnf777

04-09-2010, 08:51 PM

Jeff, if you read the Warner bill, it could easily be construed by a power-mongering president (not that we have any of those in this country) as justification for ordering the military to take out someone on our soil, if "deemed a threat". I don't want ANY one person holding that authority.

JDogger

04-09-2010, 09:17 PM

We do this every day overseas. There are ton's of people with SOS (shoot on sight) or Dead or Alive orders on thier heads. So why is it that once that policy happens here on our soil that all the sudden people have a problem with it?

This war is not just being fought in Iraq & Afghanistan. It is being fought all over the world including here in America. So why change the rules because it's here in the US? If we send the message that all you have to do is come to the US and we will arrest and try you through our judicial system then why not come here? I know i'd sure as hell rather be tried here than there.

Then, once that person is locked up how many Americans will die when his people try and help him escape? Or how many families of those who are tasked with trying him in court will end up dead?

Should send Osama to trial?

Would you blame the soildiers or civilians who find him if they bring him in dead? No...but,

Do you ever notice that sometimes there are 14 viewing, 4 members and 10 guests. Who are those "guests"?
This is a forum titled "Potus Place". Do you imagine it may be reviewed by those concerned with such sites?
Posts are made here in opposition to the duly elected Executive branch of the Federal Government every day.
They may, or may not go un-noticed.
Are you comfortable, that if they are noticed, that a team may be sent to "neutralize" the offending opposition? 1st Amendment not withstanding?

He "said bad things", replied the powers that be..."We could not allow that."

"So we took the most expedient course of action."

"The other options were just to difficult..."

Find a cave regards,

JD

freefall319

04-10-2010, 12:42 AM

I can't believe you would find it acceptable.

You cant believe that I would find the assasination of a terrorist by LE/Military acceptable?

Hmmmmmm...........:rolleyes:

freefall319

04-10-2010, 01:00 AM

No...but,

Do you ever notice that sometimes there are 14 viewing, 4 members and 10 guests. Who are those "guests"?
This is a forum titled "Potus Place". Do you imagine it may be reviewed by those concerned with such sites?
Posts are made here in opposition to the duly elected Executive branch of the Federal Government every day.
They may, or may not go un-noticed.
Are you comfortable, that if they are noticed, that a team may be sent to "neutralize" the offending opposition? 1st Amendment not withstanding?

He "said bad things", replied the powers that be..."We could not allow that."

"So we took the most expedient course of action."

"The other options were just to difficult..."

Find a cave regards,

JD

I hear what you are saying & you have a great point, no doubt about it. The whole slippery slope argument & you are correct in a sence. It is scary that the Govt can order a hit on a US citizen.But, if the Security Council approved this, dont you think they had to bring some serious evidence to the table to back it up? Do you honestly belive that the same president who bashed the CIA & FBI for thier crude interrogation practices would authorize them to kill a US citizen without having a bus load of fact's & reason to back his decision? Please, our President (like him or not) is no fool. If he is wrong about this & we kill him, one life is lost. If he is right and we do nothing, how many more could die?

I believe that the president and his cabinet did not come to this decision lightly. Especialy knowing that it was going to make national headlines. That being said, I commend him for telling the whole world that terrorist's, US citizen or not, are not safe.

& to quote you...............

Find a cave

cotts135

04-10-2010, 07:10 AM

I will ask it again..................... How do you all know what has been said about this guy is true? Everything I have read are from anonymous sources in the government. If you have something concrete I would like to see it.
The main questions here are I believe are, do we always take as gospel what the government tells us, even though just yesterday a report came out about President Bush and Vice president Cheney knowing that there were innocent people detained in Guantanamo and do we assign a sliding scale to our Constitutional rights eg: Right to free speech vs a Right to trial by jury?
And Hew, trust me, I really would not get to worked up or worried about what some low life terrorist is saying even if he singled me out as a target. However I would be much more concerned if the government did it . The first reason is obvious and that is they have more than enough capability to do it and the second reason is the dangerous expansion of government powers and the loss of Constitutional rights.

subroc

04-10-2010, 07:37 AM

do you believe that you are entitled to all the information? do you believe in the concept of "need to know?" do you believe in the concept of NOFORN, confidential, secret, or other clasifications of sensitive material? what makes you believe you are entitled to this information?

ducknwork

04-10-2010, 08:07 AM

Nobody has suggested assassinating someone on US soil and no President has the power to declare State laws against murder null and void. I would have a serious issue with that and consider it grounds for impeachment as well as criminal prosecution. I can't believe you would find it acceptable.

What if someone had Tim McVeigh in the crosshairs while he was driving his truck through OK City and had sufficient reason to believe that he was going to carry out the act that he did? Should the feds hold off on that hit so that they would avoid going to the slammer? Or should they carry it out, knowing that the murder charge would send them to the big house, but they would be saving hundreds of people? Or, should they have permission to take him out?

Black and white doesn't work here!

ducknwork

04-10-2010, 08:09 AM

No...but,

Do you ever notice that sometimes there are 14 viewing, 4 members and 10 guests. Who are those "guests"?
This is a forum titled "Potus Place". Do you imagine it may be reviewed by those concerned with such sites?
Posts are made here in opposition to the duly elected Executive branch of the Federal Government every day.
They may, or may not go un-noticed.
Are you comfortable, that if they are noticed, that a team may be sent to "neutralize" the offending opposition? 1st Amendment not withstanding?

He "said bad things", replied the powers that be..."We could not allow that."

"So we took the most expedient course of action."

"The other options were just to difficult..."

Find a cave regards,

JD

I saw tin foil hats on sale at libs-r-us.com the other day. Go pick some up for yourself, it was a great deal!

YardleyLabs

04-10-2010, 08:41 AM

What if someone had Tim McVeigh in the crosshairs while he was driving his truck through OK City and had sufficient reason to believe that he was going to carry out the act that he did? Should the feds hold off on that hit so that they would avoid going to the slammer? Or should they carry it out, knowing that the murder charge would send them to the big house, but they would be saving hundreds of people? Or, should they have permission to take him out?

Black and white doesn't work here!
Police have and regularly exercise the authority to act decisively to prevent an immediate threat to life and safety. If I see you pointing a gun at someone and I shoot and kill you, I will not be prosecuted. However, if I shoot and kill you because I think you might pull a gun and shoot someone later, I am guilty of murder unless a lot of concrete evidence surfaces to prove me right. With Timothy McVeigh, it would have been difficult for anyone to know what was happening until it was tool late. If anyone had actually known the contents of his van, it would also have been possible to prevent the explosion. Had he been shot, the evidence of the bomb in the truck would have been sufficient to exonerate those who shot him. However, if the van were empty, a lot more explaining would appropriately be needed.

freefall319

04-10-2010, 12:34 PM

do you believe that you are entitled to all the information? do you believe in the concept of "need to know?" do you believe in the concept of NOFORN, confidential, secret, or other clasifications of sensitive material? what makes you believe you are entitled to this information?

Bingo!:cool:

jwh1949

04-10-2010, 03:14 PM

I'm sorry but I say "smoke" this guy. Why are we the ones always obligated to play by the "rules" when they dont ?

cotts135

04-10-2010, 03:49 PM

do you believe that you are entitled to all the information? do you believe in the concept of "need to know?" do you believe in the concept of NOFORN, confidential, secret, or other clasifications of sensitive material? what makes you believe you are entitled to this information?

Nope, no I don't and I do believe in the concept of need to know however when you make claims though , you should support them with facts and not hide behind anonymity as is all to frequent in Washington.

freefall319

04-10-2010, 03:58 PM

Nope, no I don't and I do believe in the concept of need to know however when you make claims though , you should support them with facts and not hide behind anonymity as is all to frequent in Washington.

So you want what could be an undercover agent to out himself for your piece of mind? Please........

Have you stopped to think that maybey they are using this announcement as leverage against him or someone else? There are a lot of things that happen for much bigger/deeper reason's than the obvious. Stop and think outside the black and white a little.

Gerry Clinchy

04-10-2010, 03:58 PM

I am troubled by the lack of consistency in the logic:

A self-confessed terrorist in custody, the administration feels should have a jury trial rather than a military tribunal. However, a US citizen accused of similar crimes should be whacked without any due process at all?

The latter above would be sanctioned by the executive branch. I wonder if those who are assigned that duty might be thinking of the people who interrogated the suspects with waterboarding with similar "permission" (presumably) from the executive branch, but whom the new administration feels ought to be put on trial for those deeds.

I think that whatever decision one chooses, it must be based upon a clear definition of "actions of war" which might justify the "defensive" action at issue here and that definition would also then be applied, with consistency, to the actions of the self-confessed terrorist.

It may be a horse of a different color to discuss "removal" of the head of a belligerent state or definitive group. It is not clear to me whether the subject of assassination is such a person or whether the group is a loose band of nutcases. In the latter case, the usual process would be either to catch them in the act & they might be killed in that action; or bring them to trial (military or jury, depending on the definition mentioned earlier).

Unless we start with a clear definition of what conditions merit certain actions, there is, indeed, the danger of the expeditious methods being extended to the ordinary civilian population.

As for the military not being used in civilian situations of unrest ... I had the misfortune of getting lost near DC in 1967 (or 68?) during the riots there (& in Newark). Yup, I saw soldiers (National Guard, I was told) in camo & helmets, with guns, and military vehicles. I'm not saying that it wasn't merited during those upheavals, but the military in a peace-keeping role in a civilian situation is not unprecedented. I saw it in person. And it IS scary.

subroc

04-10-2010, 03:59 PM

Nope, no I don't and I do believe in the concept of need to know however when you make claims though , you should support them with facts and not hide behind anonymity as is all to frequent in Washington.

What would satisfy you? What information would you like to be public knowledge that would satisfy your need to know? Who would you like to expose that would satiify your curiosity to prevent someone hiding behind anonymity?

What facts are needed?

dnf777

04-11-2010, 08:14 AM

I'm sorry but I say "smoke" this guy. Why are we the ones always obligated to play by the "rules" when they dont ?

Because we're not a third world terrorist nation, but rather a nation of laws?

If you'd rather live in a country where political-religious-terror suspects are eliminated by the state, get ready to be mandated to pray according to the current leader's views, at 5am, 9am, noon, 4pm, and 9pm, or have your head chopped off on a wooden block with your friends and neighbors cheering on the swordsman.

Me? I prefer a representative democracy where we "play by the rules".

BrianW

04-11-2010, 11:53 AM

A self-confessed terrorist in custody, the administration feels should have a jury trial rather than a military tribunal. However, a US citizen accused of similar crimes should be whacked without any due process at all?

Unless we start with a clear definition of what conditions merit certain actions, there is, indeed, the danger of the expeditious methods being extended to the ordinary civilian population.

Bingo!

When PBO gets to decide who has Constitutional rights and who doesn't, there are NONE anymore, only Presidentially granted privileges or lack thereof.
Oh wait, isn't THAT why we DON'T have a king anymore?!?

shootncast

04-11-2010, 12:39 PM

Yawwwnnnn.. Arent you tired yet?

dnf777

04-11-2010, 03:09 PM

Bingo!

When PBO gets to decide who has Constitutional rights and who doesn't, there are NONE anymore, only Presidentially granted privileges or lack thereof.
Oh wait, isn't THAT why we DON'T have a king anymore?!?

How bout when ANY one man gets to decide.....I don't care what color stripes he wears.

subroc

04-11-2010, 04:14 PM

How bout when ANY one man gets to decide.....I don't care what color stripes he wears.

judges? don't they get to decide after ebing presented information?

M&K's Retrievers

04-11-2010, 04:49 PM

judges? don't they get to decide after ebing presented information?
" Judges? I don't need no judges"..... BHO

YardleyLabs

04-11-2010, 06:48 PM

" Judges? I don't need no judges"..... BHO
Are you suggesting that your statement is a quote fro Obama? If so, I would love to know the source.

dnf777

04-11-2010, 07:09 PM

judges? don't they get to decide after ebing presented information?

Of course. That is "due process", and that's what this thread is all about. A non-judicial execution warrant being issued at the whim of an executive. Not that this particular case is a "whim", but we have protections, ie the Constitution and its Bill of Rights to prevent this from happening.

jwh1949

04-11-2010, 07:54 PM

It appears to me that for one to wage war against the United States and its citizens one would have to forego his rights as a citizen. ie. You cant have your cake and eat it to.

YardleyLabs

04-11-2010, 08:05 PM

It appears to me that for one to wage war against the United States and its citizens one would have to forego his rights as a citizen. ie. You cant have your cake and eat it to.
A non-US citizen waging war against the United States would have the rights of an enemy combatant as those are defined in the Geneva Convention. A US citizen waging war against the United States (whether by siding with a foreign enemy, or engaging in domestic insurrection) would be charged with treason but would retain all rights to due process. The penalties for treason are much more serious than would be applied to an enemy combatant. However, when on the field of battle -- recognizing how fluid that may be in a terrorist environment -- the US citizen would enjoy no more protection than an enemy soldier. The mission, including nullification of enemy assets, takes precedence over preserving the lives of combatants. If we send forces to Yemen, for example, on a mission to nullify al Qaeda assets, I see no problem if those assets are killed in the course of the mission because it was not practical to nullify them in any other way. That is the nature of war. That is true regardless of the citizenship of the assets.

dnf777

04-11-2010, 08:16 PM

A US citizen waging war against the United States (whether by siding with a foreign enemy, or engaging in domestic insurrection) would be charged with treason but would retain all rights to due process. However, when on the field of battle -- recognizing how fluid that may be in a terrorist environment -- the US citizen would enjoy no more protection than an enemy soldier.

Yeah, we have precedent for just such an occurrence. At Gettysburg or any other Civil War Battlefield, you don't see countless monuments to the jails and courthouses where confederate soldiers were arrested, given due process, and incarcerated for their battlefield antics.

It is amazing how Lincoln brought the nation together, or began to. I can't think of another example in history where Gen. Lee would not have been immediately hanged, shot, or worse, along with Jefferson Davis. As far as I know, no southerner was ever charged with treason as a result of the Civil War.